or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Characteristics of Different Ski Lengths and Widths-Quiver reviews?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Characteristics of Different Ski Lengths and Widths-Quiver reviews? - Page 2

post #31 of 59

I think he meant not detuned, but softer flexing with a slightly shorter sidecut radius than standard GS racing ski, which would be a great front side ski for many (and should be well tuned razor sharp with a 0.5 base angle and 3 side angle).

post #32 of 59
Okay I got it. I was amazed when I skied the head head Rebel with a .5 / 3 tune on it.
post #33 of 59

Speaking about length, http://www.epicski.com/t/98625/can-someone-clear-up-the-relationship-between-ski-length-ski-flex-and-skier-weight

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

Skier weight is a factor in choosing the best ski length.  A heavier skier will exert more force on the ski: more downforce will need to be supported without sinking in powder, and more turning force will be required to accelerate the skier around a turn.  On snow the ski can dig into, a longer length will support more force before loosing grip.  On ice, a longer length might not have sufficient pressure to dig in, but even on ice a heavier skier will be able to make a longer length dig in more than a lighter skier (pressure being force divided by area).

 

Skiing speed is a factor in choosing the best ski length.  A faster skier needs more force to turn him.  The force required to accelerate a skier around a turn of a given radius varies directly as the skier's mass (directly related to his weight) , varies inversely with the turn radius and varies directly with the square of the skier's velocity squared(F=mv^2/R).  However, speed will only increase length so much; although the skier may need more force to turn going faster, the skier still needs to engage the edge and the only force available for that purpose is his weight (unless he is able to find places to do banked turns, e.g. tree wells devil.gif; mind your eyeseek.gif). 

 

A secondary factor where speed comes into play is making skiing rough terrain easier at speed due to fore-aft balance considerations and for soaking up bumps.  You would prefer a longer ski for skiing rough terrain at speed, where as it wouldn't matter as much skiing slowly.

 

Flex of ski versus length of ski is a little more complicated.  Skis resist bending so that weight applied at the centre is transmitted to the tips and tails, so that we can  apply and make use of forces at the tips and tails.  The stiffer the ski, the more force gets transmitted at any given bend put into the ski.  If you want to bring enough force to spread over a bigger area, the ski should be stiffer near the boot.  That doesn't mean it will be, some are some aren't.    The good ones are.  Stiffness is also a little more complicated because a longer ski with the same construction will be easier to bend due to the lever length effect, so you might not notice it is stiffer.  Think of bending a short length of 2x6 versus a long one.   If you cut the long board into short lengths, you will see they have the same stiffness.

 

Ski Length is a factor in stability.  In the old days it was pretty simple.  Longer was more stable and length was absolutely needed for stability.  Now, not so much, and not in all skis. Well maybe I didn't try the unstable skis in the old days, but that's how it seemed.   A soft ski that is made longer will be even more unstable than a short soft ski, because the added length just gives you more unstable weight out there flopping around, e.g. Rossi Bandit.  However you have to be pushing it past it's envelope, within the envelope the longer ski will seem more stable.  A stable ski that has built in vibration absorbing that can handle the extra mass of the added length will be more stable due to the extra mass requiring greater forces to vibrate it, e.g. SX11.

 

Stability above refers to the ski being controllable on a hard surface with small bumps at high speeds, and where that speed is when the ski just won't cut it.   Stability in terms of wanting to make a turn when you don't want it to is related to sidecut, stability in terms of skier being comfortable with fore-aft balance is not what I'm  referring to as stability.

post #34 of 59

It mean that when I don't go into bumps and trees, I take my R-Power or my Master 21

post #35 of 59

I ski primarily the east  so my quiver is hard snow/carve oriented.30-50 days a season.

2012 Elan SLX wave flex 170cm/ 66mm waist. Great all around hard snow east coast ripper. It's a slalom ski so small to medium radius turns are it's forte. Great in moguls and also very good at slow speeds. This is the ski use when it's all man made snow or if I am out with the kids in the afternoon doing drills.

 

2014 Dynastar Chrome 74. 178cm/74mm waist. 16 meter turn radius.I really love this ski.Great in all conditions except very tight bumps or deep powder . This is a solid ski that does great at all speeds and is just a fun board to rip around on.I ski this ski as my primary ski during the season once the mountain has decent conditions.Extremely stable and holds on ice like a hockey skate.

 

2014 Fischer Motive 80 c-line 175cm/80mm waist. Fischer makes great skis and this is no exception. Good on hard pack, eastern powder, crud,tree skiing, a jack of all trades a master of none. If I know i am skiing with a pack of folks that want to mix it up and ski off trail or do a lot of bump skiing, this ski is the one I use. It carves a good turn for an 80cm waist ski, has decent float for fresh snow and cuts through crud nicely. This was my main ski last season, until I got the Chrome 74. This is a fun easy ski, I feel like I can take anywhere on the hill and if I am in doubt about what the conditions will be like, this is what I put up on the ski rack.

 

I Tried some wider skis this season,Nordica NRGY 90, Volkl Kendo/mantra, A Bonafide and an Icelandic that was 110cm wide. They all had some good traits, but for the east , I think I have a quiver that works fine for me. When I see people skiing on 90+ waist skis on ice all day, I can't imagine it's too fun.If I got into serious tree skiing, I would try a softer 90+ waist  ski, but at Cannon NH, hard snow is generally the rule not the exception so I think I have a good mix.

post #36 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil J View Post
 

... When I see people skiing on 90+ waist skis on ice all day, I can't imagine it's too fun.If I got into serious tree skiing, I would try a softer 90+ waist  ski, but at Cannon NH, hard snow is generally the rule not the exception so I think I have a good mix.

You should follow these people and maybe you would see that they don't ski on ice all day but go in places where they can have fun with their fat skis... Then of course they cross you on ice because they need to get back to the lift...

post #37 of 59

I would normally agree with you, but this season, the woods at Cannon didn't even open up, so the skiers I am referring to were skiing the same lifts and trails as I was. I am not being critical in the least. Skiing is about having fun, and if you have fun on wide skis, on hard pack, then god bless.

post #38 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil J View Post
 

I would normally agree with you, but this season, the woods at Cannon didn't even open up, so the skiers I am referring to were skiing the same lifts and trails as I was. I am not being critical in the least. Skiing is about having fun, and if you have fun on wide skis, on hard pack, then god bless.

 

Maybe in their head, there was a lot of snow? Maybe they are the ones that still need to get in the woods to find a discret place ;)

 

Me neither I don't understand these persons...

post #39 of 59

"Run what ya brung" ... What's not to understand? 

 

 

 

post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodee View Post
 

"Run what ya brung" ... What's not to understand? 

 

 

 

 

Let's not go that way again...:rolleyes

post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogsie View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basil J View Post
 

I would normally agree with you, but this season, the woods at Cannon didn't even open up, so the skiers I am referring to were skiing the same lifts and trails as I was. I am not being critical in the least. Skiing is about having fun, and if you have fun on wide skis, on hard pack, then god bless.

 

Maybe in their head, there was a lot of snow? Maybe they are the ones that still need to get in the woods to find a discret place ;)

 

Me neither I don't understand these persons...

I don't understand persons who worry about what other folks are skiing on. 

post #42 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

I don't understand persons who worry about what other folks are skiing on. 

:D

post #43 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

I don't understand persons who worry about what other folks are skiing on. 

 

Well, the problem is that if too many people are on the wrong gear for the conditions, they have worse experiences. If they're having worse experiences, they won't ski as much, or at all. There'll be less stoke spread, and skiing will drop in ridership numbers. With fewer skiers, the smaller hills will not be able to stay open. All we'll be left with is overpriced mega resorts. 

 

So if some people are loving their fat noodles on the icy groomers, that's fine. I'm more concerned with the experience of the occasional skier who's been sold a ski that's too wide based on image.

post #44 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphor_ View Post
 

 

Well, the problem is that if too many people are on the wrong gear for the conditions, they have worse experiences. If they're having worse experiences, they won't ski as much, or at all. There'll be less stoke spread, and skiing will drop in ridership numbers. With fewer skiers, the smaller hills will not be able to stay open. All we'll be left with is overpriced mega resorts. 

 

So if some people are loving their fat noodles on the icy groomers, that's fine. I'm more concerned with the experience of the occasional skier who's been sold a ski that's too wide based on image.

I second that! 

Except for the fat noodles... Today, there is fat skis that are more solid that a lot of on-piste skis...

post #45 of 59
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphor_ View Post
 

 

Well, the problem is that if too many people are on the wrong gear for the conditions, they have worse experiences. If they're having worse experiences, they won't ski as much, or at all. There'll be less stoke spread, and skiing will drop in ridership numbers. With fewer skiers, the smaller hills will not be able to stay open. All we'll be left with is overpriced mega resorts. 

 

So if some people are loving their fat noodles on the icy groomers, that's fine. I'm more concerned with the experience of the occasional skier who's been sold a ski that's too wide based on image.

 

Of course, to be entirely fair, the "skiing public" wouldn't be happy on race slalom skis either.  Where fat noodles start and skinny skis end is subjective and has been moving (wider) lately.

 

I still think 88 is a fine one ski quiver waist width if you live on the east coast (albeit perhaps the upper end of that range), but would agree that for the (non-representative) quiver owning individuals on this board something smaller definitely makes sense.  On the other hand, if I lived in San Francisco I'd be going to Tahoe instead of Vermont and then I'd probably have a daily driver in the high 90s or 100-110 segments. 

post #46 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryBadger View Post
 

 

Of course, to be entirely fair, the "skiing public" wouldn't be happy on race slalom skis either.  Where fat noodles start and skinny skis end is subjective and has been moving (wider) lately.

 

I still think 88 is a fine one ski quiver waist width if you live on the east coast (albeit perhaps the upper end of that range), but would agree that for the (non-representative) quiver owning individuals on this board something smaller definitely makes sense.  On the other hand, if I lived in San Francisco I'd be going to Tahoe instead of Vermont and then I'd probably have a daily driver in the high 90s or 100-110 segments. 

And I second that too!... Partly...

 

88 is nice... I think we're talking more about people who ski on 100mm+ on eastcoast  when it haven't snowed for weeks...

post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodee View Post

 

Head i.SL RD - keeper.

Volkl Mantra 191cm, 100mm - one ski to replace the old Mantra & Gotamas.

Volkl Confession 193cm, 117mm - one ski to replace the Katanas and Shiro.

Volkl Nanuq 184cm, 96mm - keeper.

Volkl v-werks Katana 191cm, 114mm - keeper.

 

If I'm on piste I'm on SL or GS skis, otherwise that would give me a 'narrow' ski at ~100mm, and a wider ski at ~114mm for both AT and Alpine, which I think covers the full range for me.  I understand the industry as a whole is gravitating towards skis in the 80-90mm width range, but this seems to be too much in the "all season tire" width for me - okay in all conditions but not great at anything in particular (and life is too short to have just one pair of skis that try to do it all). 

 

You definitely like long skis, and probably have the physical size to ski them well. I am very similar, and choose the same skis on piste. You jump from race ski right up to a 100mm ski, which is interesting. When I abandoned my straight 205cm slalom skis about 5 years ago, my first three skis were non-FIS race slalom ski (175cm), FIS race GS ski (193) and a Ski Logik Ullrs Charriot, 100mm and 178cm long. I thought I that would cover NE conditions pretty well. I really enjoy all three skis a lot, but after lots of skiing I don't feel I have the "best" mix of skis for our varied conditions. I am unsure of what would be ideal. I am definitely stuck right now in the "over thinking it" phase. It is really good to hear about other's quivers and also enlightening to see all the different approaches to it. I am trying to make "strategic" purchases to fit a specific type of snow condition, another approach is buy what you like and let the quiver become your collection.


Edited by bttocs - 4/11/16 at 5:15pm
post #48 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryBadger View Post

Of course, to be entirely fair, the "skiing public" wouldn't be happy on race slalom skis either.  Where fat noodles start and skinny skis end is subjective and has been moving (wider) lately.

I still think 88 is a fine one ski quiver waist width if you live on the east coast (albeit perhaps the upper end of that range), but would agree that for the (non-representative) quiver owning individuals on this board something smaller definitely makes sense.  On the other hand, if I lived in San Francisco I'd be going to Tahoe instead of Vermont and then I'd probably have a daily driver in the high 90s or 100-110 segments. 
I think there's some confusion here between width and stiffness. In icy conditions (typical of Ontario and Quebec), an intermediate would have a great day on a ski that's soft tip-to-tail but torsionally stiff with a narrow waist. There's also a reason that at eastern level 3 exams, the vast majority of candidates only present on narrow waisted skis (whether recreational, race-inspired, or race stock). On icy eastern pistes, narrow waisted skis are the right tool for the job.

88 is appropriate in the east only if there's tons of new snow, in the park, or if the skier doesn't carve and doesn't intend to learn to do so. With the skier traffic at eastern resorts, the mountain is generally a skating rink by noon. For people who can carve, the 88 is far too slow edge to edge and requires far too much torque on the knees. While carving is possible on them, it's not fun like on a narrow waisted ski, and it can even hurt.

Put another way: there were several people on 88+ waist skis at blue mountain yesterday, but the few people carving were on slalom or gs skis.

I'm sure someone will say "you're wrong! I can carve on an 88 all day long on ice and I love it!" Fair enough, but there was no such person out there at Blue yesterday, despite the prevalence of fat skis. Unfortunately the marketing machine sells people skis for conditions we want rather than the conditions we have...

So what I'm getting at is if you're a decent skier and you're regularly skiing ice, try a narrow waisted, well tuned, advanced-to-expert ski; you'll likely find it's a completely different experience! Almost certainly a worthwhile addition to the quiver of any skier who sometimes spends days on the groomers.
post #49 of 59
Love my 88 Kendo on Eastern cut up junk, beat up snow, easy powder and it will make beautiful carving GS turns
post #50 of 59
Thread Starter 
On bullet proof ice and tight trails, I totally agree a narrower ski is better. However, in slush or if you live out east and travel west for a week, 88 is a really good waist width. At least it was for me when I still wanted a one ski quiver as opposed to more specialized skis.

Skiing very turny, skinny skis can be tiring too if there's much loose snow or you're skiing a wide open run. There are benefits to wider skis outside of powder float, I used to be skeptical as well but this season really proved there are benefits to fat to me. There are also costs.

No argument on over marketing of fats, I agree with you.
post #51 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by bttocs View Post
You definitely like long skis, and probably have the physical size to ski them well. I am very similar, and choose the same skis on piste. You jump from race ski right up to a 100mm ski, which is interesting. When I abandoned my straight 205cm slalom skis about 5 years ago, my first three skis were non-FIS race slalom ski (175cm), FIS race GS ski (193) and a Ski Logik Ullrs Charriot, 100mm and 178cm long. I thought I that would cover NE conditions pretty well. I really enjoy all three skis a lot, but after lots of skiing I don't feel I have the "best" mix of skis for our varied conditions. I am unsure of what would be ideal. I am definitely stuck right now in the "over thinking it" phase. It is really good to hear about other's quivers and also enlightening to see all the different approaches to it. I am trying to make "strategic" purchases to fit a specific type of snow condition, another approach is buy what you like and let the quiver become your collection.

 

WOW!  You waited a long time to ditch the 205cm SL's!  The good news is that you also missed a few years of really awkward and crappy skiing race skis.

 

Yeah, I'm 6'2", 220#, generally move at GS+ speeds, and have always been happiest on the longest version of any particular model ski (case in point with my 184cm Mantra - just pulled the trigger to replace it with a 191cm). 

 

As you point out there isn't a lot of overlap in both of our quivers between a race ski and 100mm ski, but that's because I just haven't focused there yet :D.  However, my current quiver represents where I do most of my skiing ... Race ski width for piste - any condition really because no matter how much it snows there is still a firm snow base under it all, and if it snows enough I'm not on piste. Off piste a 100mm ski for 'old/firm' and 112mm for 'new/soft'.   I think maybe I'll revise my 'reduced' quiver to include something like a Head Monster 88, or Volkl Kendo for front side to manage that gap.

post #52 of 59

Quote:

Originally Posted by AngryBadger View Post

.... There are benefits to wider skis outside of powder float, I used to be skeptical as well but this season really proved there are benefits to fat to me. There are also costs.. 

 

A typical misconception I hear is that fat skis are powder skis, but not very good at much else.  Some fats are powder oriented, and these are typically soft and fully rockered.  Then there are fat skis that are more 'big mountain' skis that are stiff, have metal, typically lower profile rocker, and these slay cut-up chunder, schralp, mank, and all other variable terrain better than you can ever imagine.  Oh, and they're a hoot in the deep stuff too.

 

 

post #53 of 59

Interesting thread.

 

I spend a few days each year at my local (NE PA) hill on snow that is primarily man-made and subject to a pretty vicious freeze-thaw cycle - typical East coast banana belt conditions. I also usually get about 10 days each year out West, which over the past couple of years has meant a week in the Wasatch and another week somewhere else in the Rockies. While no one could possibly confuse me with Bode Miller, I'm a modestly competent skier, don't shy away from the steep stuff (at least as long as conditions are decent) and am reasonably aggressive for someone in the denouement phase of life. Physically, I'm "compact" at 5'7" but fairly heavy (190 lbs).

 

My quiver, which is budget-constrained, consists of only two skis: Bonafides (173cm) and Latigos (177). The Bones are a great ski and work extremely well over a wide range of conditions. It's easy to see why they are so popular out West (seemingly not so much in the Canadian Rockies though) but frankly are not particularly well-suited to typical PA or even NE conditions most of the time. The only mild complaint I have about the Bones is that they punish you quickly if you get lazy - as I tend to do at the end of the skiing day when I'm getting tired.

 

Like the Bones, the Latigos also work well over a wide range of conditions but the performance curve for the Latigos is skewed to the left (where left is hardpack/ice/crud) while the Bones skew to the right (loose snow/powder). There is a middle - the packed powder/groomed area - where the two overlap and I suspect that the Brahma would comfortably fit there between its Blizzard siblings. (one of these days I hope to demo a pair to see if I'm right). The Latigo seems to be quite a bit less demanding than the Bonafide: They reward you for good ski technique but don't punish you to the same extent when you get lazy. IMO, generally a much better choice for skiing in the East than Bonafides, but also work well much of the time in the Rockies, including in modest amounts of powder.

post #54 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogsie View Post
 

And I second that too!... Partly...

 

88 is nice... I think we're talking more about people who ski on 100mm+ on eastcoast  when it haven't snowed for weeks...


​I've got Salomon Enduro 850 (84mm 178cms) and then bought Head Cyclic 115 192cms to complete my quiver.  Thought I'd only ski the Cyclic's when there was a decent amount of pow.  Brought both sets of skis to Revy last year during the drought.  Used the Enduros the first few days (limited to groomers -conditions were that bad), we then had just a bit of snow (I think 10 cms) and I skied the Cyclic's the rest of the week.  I found I preferred them even on the groomers.  I just liked the way I could attack the steeps more with the bigger ski.  Different story this year at Revy ... lots of fresh snow and only brought my Cyclics.

 

Just bought Head Monster 88s this week to replace the Enduros (delaminating at the tails :( ).  I got them in 184cms because I felt perhaps one of the reasons I was liking my Cyclics so much even on groomers was because of their length (I'm 6'4" 190lbs).  I normally ski Tremblant also, and agree that 88 is a fine width for us.  I've skied narrower skis, but I think 82-88 is a pretty sweet spot for us as long as you're not looking for something that behaves like a slalom ski.

post #55 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogsie View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldgoat View Post
 

I don't understand persons who worry about what other folks are skiing on. 

:D

:D:D

post #56 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTski View Post
 


​I've got Salomon Enduro 850 (84mm 178cms) and then bought Head Cyclic 115 192cms to complete my quiver.  Thought I'd only ski the Cyclic's when there was a decent amount of pow.  Brought both sets of skis to Revy last year during the drought.  Used the Enduros the first few days (limited to groomers -conditions were that bad), we then had just a bit of snow (I think 10 cms) and I skied the Cyclic's the rest of the week.  I found I preferred them even on the groomers.  I just liked the way I could attack the steeps more with the bigger ski.  Different story this year at Revy ... lots of fresh snow and only brought my Cyclics.

 

Just bought Head Monster 88s this week to replace the Enduros (delaminating at the tails :( ).  I got them in 184cms because I felt perhaps one of the reasons I was liking my Cyclics so much even on groomers was because of their length (I'm 6'4" 190lbs).  I normally ski Tremblant also, and agree that 88 is a fine width for us.  I've skied narrower skis, but I think 82-88 is a pretty sweet spot for us as long as you're not looking for something that behaves like a slalom ski.

Enduro 850 are really nice skis! Had a blast each time I tried them!

I was looking for a ski around 113mm this year and almost bought the Cyclic 115 but the weird look... How nice are they?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by levy1 View Post
 

:D:D

:D:D:D   I knew you'll understand me...

post #57 of 59
It took a couple of years but yes I do!
post #58 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogsie View Post
 

Enduro 850 are really nice skis! Had a blast each time I tried them!

I was looking for a ski around 113mm this year and almost bought the Cyclic 115 but the weird look... How nice are they?

 

:D:D:D   I knew you'll understand me...


​I like the Enduros also ... very good for Tremblant, but it's the second time I have them delaminate (first time was under the boot area).  First time they replaced under warranty.  A friend with the same skis also had them delaminate at the tails (replaced under warranty with X.Drive).  So I've had enough with Salomon until I'm sure they've fixed their manufacturing issues.

 

I love my Cyclics, but to be honest I haven't skied very many pow skis of the width to make a good comparison.  I bought them based on price (crazy deal, think it was a mistake) and positive reviews.  I was really impressed with how well they ski on groomers (because I was thinking they'd suck a bit) and in the glades.  They dwarf my Enduros, but weigh less which really helps make them feel pretty nimble in the glades and bumps.  They are awesome doing runs like Expo (skiers right side where it is ungroomed and less traffic) and Cossack as long as they are soft.  I don't find they look weird.  At Revelstoke (only other place I've skied them) they were amazing in the trees and in the bowls.  Oh, also took them catskiing with K3 catskiing that is in that area.  Loved them there also ... pretty deep pow. 

post #59 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTski View Post
 


​I like the Enduros also ... very good for Tremblant, but it's the second time I have them delaminate (first time was under the boot area).  First time they replaced under warranty.  A friend with the same skis also had them delaminate at the tails (replaced under warranty with X.Drive).  So I've had enough with Salomon until I'm sure they've fixed their manufacturing issues.

 

I love my Cyclics, but to be honest I haven't skied very many pow skis of the width to make a good comparison.  I bought them based on price (crazy deal, think it was a mistake) and positive reviews.  I was really impressed with how well they ski on groomers (because I was thinking they'd suck a bit) and in the glades.  They dwarf my Enduros, but weigh less which really helps make them feel pretty nimble in the glades and bumps.  They are awesome doing runs like Expo (skiers right side where it is ungroomed and less traffic) and Cossack as long as they are soft.  I don't find they look weird.  At Revelstoke (only other place I've skied them) they were amazing in the trees and in the bowls.  Oh, also took them catskiing with K3 catskiing that is in that area.  Loved them there also ... pretty deep pow. 

Last year, I went up sharing a chair with Eric Guay and he had a pair but the 95 mm version and really liked them...:)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Characteristics of Different Ski Lengths and Widths-Quiver reviews?